Comment: Your words ring true with me!

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Maybe this proposed law is a tactic (see in situ)

Your words ring true with me!

When I was trying to figure out what in the world was going on in these United States and finally found Ron Paul the first thing I looked into before embracing him was his stance on life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em... .

From then on I was hooked!

That being said, part of my waking up was to realize that the life issue is used by politicians to capture the vote. IMO neither "party" wants to fix the issue because it is one of the major issues that splits the voters, perhaps so they can keep selling us down the river...

The thing I would like to understand is that both Ron's Sanctity of Life Act and Rand's Life at Conception act state that life begins at conception. How is one Federally binding while the other isn't?

I understand that Rands legislation targets protection from the 14th amendment will Ron's act specifically says the congress will recognize that the states have the right to PROTECT life.

Is there any significance to the word "protect" once life is established at conception?

Both pieces of legislation would overturn Roe v Wade. Ron's Bill specifically says the supreme court will have to stay out of the matter.

...